Chapter 3

The True Origin of the Species

Darwin’s garden was planted in very thin soil, but no one knew that at the time.

In the last two chapters we’ve taken a tour—and a rather
ugly tour—of the implications of evolutionary and racist
thought. Sociologically and culturally, the implications are
far-reaching. They reach from the policies of entire nations to
the day-to-day discrimination of a particular individual in a particular
place. The question of racism cannot be understated. But
what is the answer? Where do we turn for a biblical and truthful
response to this situation?

Thankfully, God has not left us in a void of information.
The answers are there. From the special revelation of His written
Word and from the natural revelation that we have from science,
we can not only expose the roots of racism and evolution as lies,
but we can uproot Darwin’s garden and plant new seeds—seeds of truth from God, rather than seeds from the prejudiced wisdom of fallen man.

Thin Soil

Darwin’s garden was planted in very thin soil, but no one
knew that at the time. The theory of evolution seemed to coincide
with accepted scientific facts of the day, particularly among
the secularists who had abandoned the truth of Scripture.

When Darwin jumped on the Beagle, the famous ship that
would take him to exotic locales of the world, some of his basic
ideas about evolution were already intact. He already believed in
an earth that was millions of years old and he had already abandoned
his faith in a Creator. As he sailed around the world, he
began to notice different types of animals—animals that shared
similarities but also showed great variety, depending on where
they happened to live. He also noticed that some animals with
close similarities also live in close proximity to each other. He
began to theorize that all life began from a single living creature
and that over much time this animal changed or “evolved” into
something more complex. Over more time, Darwin’s theory said
that different kinds of animals branched off and became something
totally different.

The theory claims that crude human-like beings eventually evolved and branched off into various hominids.

The theory claims that crude human-like beings eventually
evolved and branched off into various hominids. Darwin, like
many evolutionists, believed that some hominids developed larger
brains faster, leaving others behind. The most advanced species
(in the evolutionist’s evolved brain at least) was a 19th-century
European gentleman who was supposedly far more evolved than
an Australian Aborigine. This revolutionary, evolutionary idea
added fuel to racist thinking and vice versa.

Darwin’s theory seems to make sense on a surface level to
many people. But there was a basic biological problem with this
theory, though very few people knew it at the time. Darwin was
a “Lamarckian” in his evolutionary beliefs. Lamarck believed that
the environment could cause a living organism to change and
that these changes could be passed on to the next generation. For
example, Lamarck believed that a giraffe originally had a short
neck. But because the giraffe stretched his neck to eat the leaves
from tall trees, early evolutionists believed that the giraffes’ neck
actually became longer. They believed that these longer necks
were then passed on to the next generation (inheriting acquired
characteristics), each time growing a little bit longer by being
stretched again and again until we have the extremely long neck
of the modern giraffe.

Again, this seemed fairly logical. Given enough time, any
level of change seemed possible—and the new science of geology
that was developing in the late 1700s and early 1800s gave
them that time. Early geologists were already toying with the
idea that the earth was many millions of years old. Darwin took
these ideas and applied them to biology. It was a short step with
far-reaching implications. The Lamarckian belief (that environment
alone could cause changes to an organism that would be
passed on to the next generation) and the concept that the earth
was millions and millions of years old allowed the seeds of Darwin’s
garden to take root. In this environment, the garden
of Darwinism flourished—and in its shadows, racism fed
off evolution’s godless philosophical and immoral implications.

The problem is that these seeds of evolutionary thinking were
planted in extremely thin scientific soil. Darwin and the scientists
who initially embraced his theory had no way of knowing
that an extremely intricate and complicated code of information
governed life from within an organism. They had neither the
technology nor the observational skills to discover that God had
placed a phenomenally amazing blueprint for life inside every
cell, inside every organism, inside every human being.

They had yet to discover the world of genetics.

What’s in Your DNA?

Through modern technology and countless hours of painstaking
research, modern scientists are uncovering the wonders
of biological life that are immeasurably more complicated than
anything scientists could have conceived of in the 1800s.

In the area of biochemistry, for example, scientists have discovered
the world of intricate design far beyond the imagination
of the early biologists. In his book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe describes the phenomenal
chemical machines that make up the foundations of life . . . and he shows how it would be absolutely impossible for them to come into being by the process of Darwinian evolution.

The same goes for the science of genetics. Genes are pieces
of DNA that contain the information necessary to build a living
organism. They are like the blueprint for a building—except
that they are far more expansive and complicated than any blueprint
for any building that has ever been built. Through sexual
and asexual reproduction, genes are passed from generation to
generation, carrying the information required for organisms to
reproduce.

It is important to understand some of the basic (easy to
comprehend) principles of genetics, so we can then apply this
to the human race. Even those who don’t believe in Darwinian
evolution are often perplexed by how all the different people
groups with differing shades of skin color, differing eye shapes,
and so on could arise if we are all descendants of just two people—Adam and Eve.

In this discussion, we will use dogs to lay down some basic
genetic principles—and that will make it easy to understand
how the different people groups have arisen. This will also help
us to provide the right foundation of understanding to deal with
racism and prejudice.

A dog/wolf has 19,300 genes. Like all animals, they inherit
two copies of each gene (one from each parent). That means that
they not only inherit the information, but they can also inherit
great varieties of information.

The variation in just three
different genes could result in five different variations of offspring
(and many more are possible). When you consider all of the possible
genes and all of the possible combinations, we can see that
the possibilities are nearly limitless.

The number of atoms estimated in the entire universe is in
the order of a 1 followed by 80 zeros. But the number of combinations
of unique children that a male and female human could
potentially procreate is even more than this. There’s phenomenal
variability in our genes. DNA is the most complex phenomenal
storage system in the universe. When one considers the amount
of information that God put in our DNA—one just has to
stand back in awe of our Creator. It is mind-boggling.

The genetic code that God created for Adam and Eve was perfect.
But the consequences of the Fall and living in a fallen environment
cause mutations. Mutations are glitches in the genetic
code that can change the way an organism was originally designed,
and these changes are often passed on to future generations of
offspring.

As the discovery of DNA began to be understood, Darwinists
were sent scrambling to come up with new ideas on how
evolution might have occurred. No longer can changes in the
organism be attributed simply to external forces. For organisms to
change, and for those changes to be passed on to future generations,
there must be genetic alterations.

Darwinists were forced to try to concoct new theories that
incorporated these new understandings about genetics and integrate
them with observations about natural selection (the process
that allows certain varieties of organisms to survive better
in different environments). And they tried to explain how this
phenomenal genetic code might have come into being by itself.
If evolution happened as they claimed, then the code system and
information must have arisen from inanimate matter by natural
processes. (Absolutely no realistic scenario has ever been presented
to explain how this could happen.)

The battle between evolution and creation is now being
fought on a new front. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that when
God made the animals and plants, He made them after their
“kind.” Darwin postulated that not only did life arise by natural
processes out of dead matter, but also that over millions of years
one kind totally changed into another. He theorized that fish
evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, reptiles
evolved into birds, and so on.

The question then becomes this: Can genetic mutations,
combined with natural selection over millions of years, account
for the vast amounts of new information that are required for
one kind of organism to change into an entirely different kind
of organism?

Mutations: Friend or Foe?

I first need to point out that genetic mutations cause flaws in
the genetic code. They don’t add new information, they simply
alter existing information . . . and in almost all situations, this
is not good for the organism. Some mutations could result in a
beneficial effect, in a limited sense. If a beetle on a windswept island
harbors a mutation that results in no wings, it would be less
likely to be blown into the sea. Although this mutation would
be beneficial to the beetle and its offspring in their current environment,
the information in the DNA for wing-making has
been lost. This is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution; it
doesn’t add any new information to the gene pool.

In nature, mutations are almost always destructive—the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution requires.

Another important point to make here is that most mutations
result in corruption of information. Most animals with serious
mutations cannot not survive “naturally” in the environment,
and they die before reproducing. However, humans can
keep domesticated animals alive by feeding them special food,
cutting their hair, taking them to veterinarians for medicine and
operations, etc. But in nature, mutations are almost always destructive—the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution requires. Many mutations not only corrupt information, but they
also remove variability from the gene pool. For example, a recently
discovered genetic mutation keeps certain breeds of dogs very
small. Dogs of this breed can no longer grow to a larger size.1
Unless the dogs are again bred with other varieties of dogs, this size
limit caused by the mutation will be passed on to all subsequent
generations. This is the way it works with all living organisms. As
each succeeding generation of creatures (including man) comes
into being, mutations from the former generation are passed
along. After six thousand years, we have a significant collection
of such mistakes in the gene pools of all the animals and humans
on this earth.

In fact, genetic mutations make time the enemy of evolution,
rather than its friend. The more time that passes, the more genetic
mutations will accumulate in the gene pool.

Let me tell you this: mutations never, ever produce brand-new
information and only operate on the information that’s there. That’s
what the students at schools and colleges aren’t told and don’t understand.
For Darwinian evolution, you need brand-new information
that never previously existed, which is what you never see.

Can you imagine what would happen if you taught this in
the secular school classroom? I’ll tell you what happens, because
I used to do it! I taught biology in Australia during a time when
we still had the freedom to present all the facts about evolution.
I would spend 45 minutes giving a lesson on natural selection,
and I had teachers come to me afterward, yelling at me, because
I wasn’t endorsing Darwinian evolution. But once you teach students
the basic facts about genetics—that mutations do not
create new information—they will never forget it . . . and the
next time their teachers try to tell them they do, they know the
right questions to ask . . . and the next time someone claims to
be a higher evolved race (like the Ku Klux Klan), they will know
that’s a lie and that all have been created equal.

Natural Selection

Natural selection is the observed process of certain varieties
of animals being selected out of the gene pool because they are
not equipped to survive in their environment. The process of
natural selection is extremely well documented. Natural selection
tends to only sort out fairly minor characteristics (color, size, proportions,
etc.). In a short period of time, as the organisms with
advantageous genes reproduce more successfully, the disadvantageous
genes can be bred out of the gene pool. Remember, whether
the genes are advantageous or disadvantageous depends on the
environment (as with the wingless beetle on a windy island). The
result is that certain varieties of an animal will be unable to reproduce
the traits that their ancestors originally had in their gene
pool. Outwardly, then, we see increased outward diversity among
different breeds regarding their size, the length of their fur, or the
color of their eyes, etc. But this actually represents a decrease in
the variety in their gene pool. “Pure breeds” no longer have the
ability to reproduce the type of diversity that the original pair of
the kind had.

But is this evolution in the molecules-to-man sense? Absolutely
not. It’s the exact opposite of Darwinian evolution—and
yet many evolutionists point to this type of diversity as evidence
that evolution takes place . . . and some use it as justification for
prejudice and racism.

Proper Interpretation of the Evidence

If you wanted to find evidence for Darwinian evolution,
you’d expect to find it in London, England, near Darwin’s home
territory. Secular scientists are very proud of Darwin; he is a hero
in many circles. On the second floor of the London Natural History
Museum is one of the most expansive displays regarding
Darwinian evolution that can be found. It’s kind of like a memorial
in Darwin’s honor.

In the exhibit labeled “The Origin of Species,” a sign says this:
“Before Charles Darwin, most people believed that God created
all living things exactly in the form we see them today; this is the
basis of the doctrine of creation.”

The next sign says this: “But Darwin supported the view that
all living things have developed into the forms that we see today
by a process of gradual change over long periods of time; this is
what is meant by evolution.”

This is the way evolution is taught in the museums and in
the secular school textbooks in America (and around the world).
They give lots of examples of animal diversity, and then they say
that this is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. By misinterpreting
the evidence available from genetics, the evolutionists use
sporadic bits of information to create an entirely wrong picture
of how things came into being.

In the process, evolutionists set up what is called a “straw
man” argument against creation. You need to understand how
students are brainwashed, programmed, and led astray. Let me
show you what they’re doing.

They begin by saying, “Ah, creationists believe God made
everything just as we see it today, but we’re going to show you
in this exhibit that animals change. Because animals change, creationists
are wrong and because creationists are wrong that means
that evolution’s right.”

But wait a minute. Is that correct? Do informed creationists
believe that all living things were created exactly in the form we
see them today? Absolutely not! Evolutionists are establishing a
“false premise” by saying creationists believe something that we
do not.

We know from Scripture that God created the animals according
to their “kind” (such as the canine or feline “kind”).
Within each of these kinds, God created the genetic ability to
reproduce a vast variety within the different types of animals.

Let’s consider dogs for a moment.

When the pair of dogs/wolves got off of Noah’s Ark, these
dogs mated and began to reproduce. Eventually, small groups
of dogs started splitting away from the other groups and went
off by themselves in different directions. This split up the gene
pool, resulting in a number of dog populations with different
combinations of genes from the original pair. Some of the combinations
of genes resulted in features that were better able to
survive in the particular environments to which they migrated.
For instance, in cold climates dogs that carried the genes for
big furry coats survived better than their companions that carried
genes for thin coats. The big furry dogs were more likely to
survive and pass on those genes. The short hair or medium hair
length dogs tended to die out of the population because it was
too cold for them. In time, these populations ended up having
only genes for thick fur and none for the thin. These dogs
became specialized to cold areas and displayed a diversity not
displayed in their original ancestors.

This specialization came about through natural selection by
getting rid of the genes that code for thin fur. The new breeds of
dogs have less genetic information (and less variability) than the
original types from which they were bred. That’s called “natural
selection” or “adaptation.” It’s not necessarily survival of the fittest;
it’s survival of those that have the right characteristics to
survive in that environment. They might be the fittest in that
environment, but overall they might not be the fittest dog.

If a group of animals that share a common ancestry are
separated from each other for long enough, it’s even possible that
they would no longer be able to breed with each other. By separating
the gene pool, decreasing certain traits by natural selection, and
experiencing different types of mutations, groups could be formed
that could only breed with one another. Researchers are carefully
considering the possibility that genetic mutation, size disparity,
and behavior changes can result in breeding isolation. But this
is not Darwinian evolution! This is not a genetic improvement
for the species as a whole. No new information is being added
to the blueprint. The “new” species have less genetic variability
and less chance of survival in a changing environment. Certainly
there are new combinations of information that may result in
some different varieties—but this only happens as a result of the
information already available in the gene pool for each kind.

Natural selection is not an onward-upward process with new
information added in order to get entirely new organisms. Natural
selection cannot create totally new characteristics that were
not possible from the information already in the particular gene
pool. It can only select from what already exists in that gene pool.
It causes changes that take place within a species or within a kind
by weeding out certain characteristics that are not advantageous
in a specific environment. It can’t cause one kind to change into
another. Natural selection does not cause reptiles to evolve into
birds—reptiles don’t have the information for feathers; only
birds do. You’d have to have brand-new information to get something
brand new that never previously existed or was possible
from the information available. That’s not what’s happening;
natural selection is basically a downhill process (or a conserving
process). Natural selection results in a loss of genetic information
and/or redistribution of pre-existing information.

Yet the public school textbooks by and large say, “Darwin
observed that animals change. Look at all the different varieties
and species of animals we have today!” Young people read that
and they say, “Well I guess that is evolution. Look at all that
variety and the changes. Wow, given enough time, those sorts of
little changes can actually add up to big changes to cause molecules-to-man evolution.” That’s the progression that they want you to believe when you walk through the Darwin exhibit in the
museum in London. Do you hear what they are saying? Creationists
believe God made everything just as we see them today, whereas
Darwin saw that animals change, and therefore the creationists are
wrong because we observe change; therefore evolution is right.

And we know that’s absolutely false. Informed creationists do
not believe that God made the animals and plants just as we see
today. Creationists understand that God created specific kinds of
animals with the potential to reproduce in great variety. Also, sin
changed everything and harmful mutations entered the once perfect
world. Mutations and natural selection cannot add anything to
gene pools; they can only take away or alter what is already there.

This helps us answer some questions, too. How did Noah
get all the different varieties of animals on the ark? He didn’t! He
only needed to take one pair from each kind of land-dwelling,
air-breathing animals, each with tremendous genetic variability.
Some say that there may have been 16,000 animals on Noah’s Ark;
some say as few as 1,000. It’s likely that the world’s environment
was much more diverse and demanding after the Flood than it
was before. The forces of natural selection, combined with the
effects of genetic mutations and other possible built-in genetic
factors, immediately began to cause a narrowing of the gene pool
in certain groups that disbursed to certain areas, causing the vast
amount of variety and speciation that we observe today.

Animals and plants do change within their kind, but there is
no evidence or explanation for how they could change from one
kind into another—because genetic mutations never add new
information, and the process of natural selection can only take
away information.

Unnatural Selection

In nature, environmental and other issues affect which organisms
with specific collections of genes will survive. Humans, however,
can intentionally limit which animals breed with each other
in order to eliminate certain characteristics and emphasize others.
This is called artificial selection—and this process developed the
enormous varieties of domestic breeds in the time since the Flood,
about 4,300 years ago. Compared to their dog/wolf ancestors,
many of these breeds are next to (dare I say) worthless. Their gene
pool is about one millimeter deep. I should know; I have one of
these mutants living in my home. She may look cute, but the science
of genetics is confirming what I’ve always said about her. I
call her “a degenerate mutant affected by sin and the Curse.” The
problem is that the rest of my family calls her “Mintie”—and
this mutant thinks that she is the queen of our home. She prances
about as if she owns the place, often sleeping in my chair in the
living room. (After my family reads this chapter, I’ll be the one
“in the dog house,” so to speak. But if I can use our little dog to
help people understand science and the Bible, then surely our dog
Mintie can become a hero . . . actually, a heroine.)

Mintie is a bichon frise, a variety of dog that was bred over
time like all the other domestic varieties of dogs (probably in
France or Germany, up to 700 or more years ago).2 We could say
that God created the original dogs and bichons and poodles were
developed by man from that original—but only using the information
God put there in the first place. So in a sense one could say
God made bichons and poodles—but only in the sense that God
created all the original perfect information for these breeds of dogs
which existed in the Garden of Eden. But let’s be honest, this cute
little fuzzy thing that rules my home is no genetic improvement—it’s a mutant suffering from the effects of the Fall and sin. Our dog has to have her hair cut each month (because of a mutation
affecting the shedding of hair) and is susceptible to bladder stones
(it had to have a very expensive operation). Mintie now lives on
pricey prescription food and needs estrogen tablets regularly. I’m
thinking about health insurance for the dog! The list of physical
problems due to mutations is extensive in domestic breeds. See
the following for some problems in poodles, for instance.

Bichons and poodles (like all domestic varieties) are the result
of a downward process. They have not just developed from dog
genes, but from cursed copies of dog genes! Sorry about that—but it is true that dogs like Mintie are the result of the Curse! Each time I arrive home and our pet bichon races to the door to
meet me, I am reminded of my sin—that I, in Adam, sinned
and ushered in the Fall. (Now my wife may think I’m nuts, but
I’m trying to illustrate an important point here.) After God pronounced
every created thing as “very good,” Adam sinned, resulting
in the whole of creation being cursed. Everything began to
run down, no longer upheld perfectly by the sustaining power of
an infinite Creator. When we unnaturally select out certain traits
and create “pure breeds,” we aren’t creating anything new. We are
actually filtering out diversity that God created in the original
kind and passing on mutations that are detrimental. When one
breeds poodles with poodles (why people do this is hard to come
to grips with), only poodles will be produced, sadly! In a sense, a
poodle is near the end of the line for a dog—there is not enough
variety left for anything different to develop. (At least nothing of
value, in my opinion!) If one were to start with wolves and breed
generations of dogs, breeding the right combinations together
with all the same sorts of mutations occurring all over again in
the right sequence, then one could theoretically breed a dog with
poodle characteristics. But one could never breed a wolf from a
poodle, because the necessary information for wolves has been
corrupted or deleted.

Even with all the variety that we see in the dog world, however,
both the Bible and the best of scientific research show that
they are all descendents of one specific kind—the dog kind. This
is exactly what we would expect from a biblical perspective and a
straightforward interpretation of the creation account, Noah, the
Ark, and the Flood. In the journal Science, November 22, 2002,3
secular scientists reaffirmed something that has been well known
and accepted. All dogs (from wolves and dingoes down to poodles)
are all closely related, the descendents of the same pair:

The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has been
established . . . we examined the mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs
representing all major dog populations worldwide . . . suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for
all dog populations.4

Two-kilogram teacup poodles; 90-kg mastiffs; slender
greyhounds; squat English bulldogs: For a single species,
canines come in a vast array of shapes and sizes. Even
more remarkably, they all come from the same stock. . . . Only subtle differences distinguish dogs from coyotes,
jackals, and other canines, making family trees difficult
to construct and the timing of the transition from wolf
to dog hard to pinpoint.5

If all dogs share a common gene pool, how many kinds
of dogs are there? There’s only one; only one kind of dog. You
can have different species within a kind, right? But they’re still
dogs. From a biblical perspective, this means they are all within
the same kind (one of the kinds that God created “after their
kind” as we read ten times in Genesis 1, who reproduce their
own kind). Our domestic dogs (like Mintie) were produced by
artificial selection—since humans do the selecting, rather than
the environment or other factors. And, as is the case for most
of our domestic dogs, we have selected for mutations (basically
“mistakes”) that we like!

A Quick Summary

We have covered a lot of material about Darwinism in this
chapter. Let me briefly summarize and then show why this is so
important in our discussion about racism.

Natural selection can only operate on the information
that exists in the gene pool.

Most students in evolutionary-biased education come
to believe that mutations and natural selection result
in one kind of creature changing into a totally different
kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations
do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely
mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation
within a kind. Science has never observed a change
from one kind to another kind.

Over time, mutations and natural selection lead to a
loss of genetic information. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner
(who was a fellow at Johns Hopkins University)
stated: “All mutations that have been studied on the
molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information
and not to increase it . . . not even one mutation
has been observed that adds a little information to the
genome.”6

There are no natural mechanisms by which new information
can be added into the gene pool. For a reptile
to change into a bird, vast amounts of new information
would have to be introduced to the gene pool (for
example, information on how to make feathers).

Natural selection and mutations lead to physical diversity,
not increased genetic information. Dr. Gary
Parker, in chapter 2 of the book Creation: Facts of Life,
stated it this way:

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires
an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of
new genes and new traits as life is supposed to
move from simple beginnings to ever more varied
and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish
to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where
varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer
interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly
the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive
isolation has a smaller gene pool than
the original and a restricted ability to explore new
environments with new trait combinations or to
meet changes in its own environment. The longterm
result? Extinction would be much more
likely than evolution.

The changes observed with both natural selection and mutations
are the opposite of those needed for evolution to work.
Scientists know this is true, but sadly it is not widely published
nor is it usually explained to students in schools or colleges.

Conclusion

Darwin was correct about natural selection. We do observe
small changes in living things. However, now that we understand
more about genetics and biochemistry, we know that the process
of natural selection and mutation can never form new kinds of
animals and plants. They can only cause more diversity and varieties
within the same kind. Dogs always reproduce dogs, cats
reproduce cats, elephants reproduce elephants, apes reproduce
apes . . . and humans have always reproduced humans. Period.

This revelation destroys the possibility of Darwinian evolution
and uproots the weeds of racism. A proper interpretation of
the evidence makes it clear that humanity (and all living communities)
thrive on diversity and unity but are weakened by forced
uniformity. When we unnaturally select out certain traits as being
more valuable than others, we ignore the necessity for diversity
within our culture, gene pool, society, and world. Think about
it. We are all of one kind (one biological race), just as the Bible
says, no matter the shade of our skin, the length of our bones or
the contours of our face. We always have been and always will
be brothers and sisters with a common heritage and ancestry.
In a following chapter we will explain, using the basic genetic
principles outlined in this chapter, how different people groups
exist within the one race of humans—thus showing conclusively
there are no different biological human races, just different
groups within the one race.

Did you know that Darwin studied theology, Stalin studied
for the priesthood, and Hitler was a member of the Church
until the day he died? Even Mao lived in China during a period
of great Western missionary activity. Yet tragically, all these men
rejected truth—they rejected Scripture—and that led to the
greatest ethnic cleansing policies in all of history. They attempted
to unnaturally select certain arbitrary characteristics that they
found desirable and tried to eliminate those who appeared to
be different. They used their own criteria to sift out what they
thought was valuable and invaluable in the human gene pool . . . and in the process millions and millions died.

How different things might have been had these men simply
believed the only source for all truth and that our common origin
is from a wise and powerful Creator. They would have adopted a
different, biblical philosophy for living together as one kind—just as we can, when we embrace the scientific and biblical reality that we are all “one blood.”

One Race One Blood

Most people do not realize how intimately connected the popular idea of evolution and the worst racist ideology in history are. Ken Ham and Dr. Charles Ware reveal the compelling history of the effect of an evolution-based belief system on the history of the United States, including slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and abortion. They go beyond politically-correct speech to show the tragic global harvest of death and tragedy that stems from Darwin’s controversial beliefs.

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.